Miller v. Carlisle (1899) · DecisionDepot

Miller v. Carlisle

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Dec 29, 1899 No. Sac. No. 560Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the judgment against the defendants must be reversed because the lower court lacked jurisdiction and the judgment improperly awarded a joint recovery for several demands.

Issues

Whether the court below had jurisdiction to render the judgment.
Whether the judgment was erroneous in awarding a joint recovery for several demands.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the court helow had no jurisdiction to render the judgment appealed from”

“the judgment is also erroneous in that it awards a recovery in favor of the plaintiffs jointly, their demands being several”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Butte County. John C. Gray, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court and in the opinion rendered in the case of Miller v. Carlisle, ante, p. 327.

THE COURT. This appeal is hy the defendant Boggs from the personal judgment in the action rendered against him and his codefendant Carlisle. The facts necessary to an understanding of the case are stated in the opinion rendered on the appeal (Sac. No. 584, ante, p. 327) from the order denying the motion of Carlisle for new trial. For the reasons there given it appears that the court helow had no jurisdiction to render the judgment appealed from; the judgment is also erroneous in that it awards a recovery in favor of the plaintiffs jointly, their demands being several; it is therefore reversed.

Miller v. Carlisle

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief